Gibbs Quantum Fields Computed by Action Mechanics Recycle Emissions Absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, Optimising the Elevation of the Troposphere and Surface Temperature Using the Virial Theorem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see uploaded file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a highly ambitious and unconventional theoretical framework, "action mechanics," aiming to fundamentally revise our understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics. The authors reinterpret Carnot's work, apply a novel formulation involving Gibbs energy fields and the virial theorem to atmospheric layers, and propose alternative mechanisms for energy transfer and surface warming involving greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the paper falls short of publishable standards. Key flaws include (i) an overloaded, often self‑contradictory theoretical concepts that is only loosely connected to accepted statistical mechanics, (ii) no independent derivation or empirical validation of the central equations, (iii) extensive numerical tables, (iv) prose so dense that even specialists will struggle to follow the argument. Major, not minor, revision would be required—and even then, the core physical claims would need rigorous re‑derivation and experimental/observational confirmation. I suggest rejecting this time.

Comments on the specific sections demanded by editors:

• Literature coverage: The review is inadequate. It heavily cites the authors' previous works but fails to engage substantially with current research and established textbooks on atmospheric thermodynamics, radiative transfer, or climate science regarding the lapse rate and greenhouse effect. The dismissal of standard interpretations is asserted rather than argued with reference to counter-evidence or mainstream understanding. The statement that entropy "lacking physical dimensions" (line 66-67) is incorrect; entropy has units.

• Gap Identification: A gap is identified by claiming existing models are flawed, but the justification for this claim within the paper is insufficient. It relies on the reader accepting the authors' framework a priori. The gap appears to be that traditional meteorology neglects virial‑action mechanics, but no evidence is given that this omission leads to prediction errors that the new theory corrects.

• Theoretical foundation: The foundation is the authors' own action mechanics and a specific, non-standard application of the virial theorem. The validity of this foundation is the core question, and it is not adequately established within the standard physics community.

• Detail and replicability: Insufficient detail is provided for replication from this paper alone. Key equations involve terms whose calculation and theoretical basis are not fully explained without referring to prior work. Reliance on specific, non-standard software further hinders replicability.

• Analysis and interpretation: All interpretations are filtered through the lens of the proposed virial-action theory. Agreement with observations is presented as validation, but this is circular if the theory itself is not independently validated. For instance, the claim in Figure 6 that the virial model fits planetary lapse rates better needs much more scrutiny regarding the data sources, error bars, and the statistical methodology used.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on

 

Gibbs Quantum Fields Computed by Action Mechanics Recycle Emissions Absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, Optimising Elevation of the Troposphere and Surface Temperature Using the Virial Theorem

 

 

The topic needs major revision. 

The following comments should be addressed.

 

• The abstract must be rewritten. You should emphasise the problem, the parameters used, and the main aim of the manuscript and finally the primary outcomes from the study.
• There are typos and graphical errors that should be corrected in the manuscript. Avoid using self-pronouns in the writing.
• The keywords are too many. It should be reduced to a maximum of 6.
• The introduction should be reviewed and rewritten; it is difficult to follow and understand.
• The description of the materials and methods is difficult to follow. It uses many mathematical expressions in the text, making it difficult. In addition, the authors used to refer to their previous results, which makes it challenging to go through the paper without seeing the previous papers and their findings. All of this makes it too difficult, as does the pure mathematics used in the paper.
• The results, discussion, and even the conclusions need to be enhanced.
• Results and discussions of each parameter should summarize the outcomes from the figures.
• For example, in the conclusion part, the authors refer to many references so that the reader has to return to them to see what was there and then see the outcome.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in some sentences is difficult to follow and should be improved.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately resolved all the issues I have earlier raised. The manuscript is suitable for publication in Thermo in the current form 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors replied well to the first round. But still, I need to make some minor comments.

1- Explain what you mean in equation 2, [9, eqn. 4-21] 

2- See also equation 4

3- Improve Figures 5 and 8. The resolution is low and should be enhanced.

Then it is accepted.